I’m down here in Ashland, Virginia and I’ve read a brief news report of the upcoming vote to allow a casino to be built and operated on or near the historic Gettysburg Battlefield in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Both sides of the issue have been represented. The casino developer states jobs, economic development and taxbase while the opponents, according to the media report are showing a video produced by New Hampshire film maker Ken Burns about the“degradation of the historic area by this proposal” or something very close to this. From what I now understand the video also showed the historical significance of this battle including the contribution and sacrifice of those in the battle itself.
I’m sure the video was accurate and quality all of his videos are. But I’m questioning if that the use of the material in this way actually crosses the line between creating a historical documentary and just plain political lobbying. I’m also reaching for the right words and venue here and why Gettysburg? Or at least this particular proposal?
Consider Fort Massachusetts located not far from the casinos in Biloxi, Mississippi. They made a movie about the historical significance of this fort it stars Matthew Broderick I can’t think of the name of the film. But if protecting historical resources is all that important why didn’t the New Hampshire filmmaker attempt to stop the casinos in Mississippi or maybe he did?
In politics nothing is ever as it seems.